Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]beevul
(12,194 posts)283. Sorry bud, but you're wrong again.
"For your interpretation to be true, there has to be qualifiers denoting that individuals may exercise the right by themselves."
For your above sentence to be true, the bill of rights would have to be a "the people are allowed to..." document, rather than a "government shall not" document.
The bill of rights, is a document which protects rights.
It does so, through a mechanism of forbidding certain actions by government, which is explicitly stated and spelled out in the preamble, and often referred to as a negative charter of rights.
Amendment 2, which is contained in the bill of rights, forbids a certain action by government.
The action which it forbids is infringement on a right which belongs to the people, namely the right to keep and bear arms.
Your entire argument depends on this:
Your "theory" is wrong because an individual acting alone cannot exercise that right. The people in their collective capacity can exercise that right."
That's simply your opinion, nothing more. It doesn't mesh well with reality. Easily shown to be at odds with reality, it is.
"2. Obviously, the rights belong to people and not brick walls. The question is whether those rights were intended to be exercised collectively or by individuals acting alone."
Nope. Whats in question, is what was passed into binding law, since THAT represents ultimately, ALL of the framers rather than whatever subset you might cherrypick and groom and mischaracterize to suit your ends.
3. The rights we're talking about came from the people who framed those constitutions.
Actually, they didn't. The protections of those rights came from the framers. The rights themselves, are a result of the theory behind our system of government. And the framers understood the final result of their efforts, the negative charter of rights.
You clearly don't understand how that works.
4. I haven't said that the U.S. Bill of Rights created rights, and my argument doesn't depend on the U.S. Bill of Rights creating rights.
But you proceed from exactly that standpoint.
You proceed from the standpoint that all things are forbidden except that which is allowed via due process, rather than reality. Now, I know you think your gonna spin your way out of it, but heres the proof:
"For your interpretation to be true, there has to be qualifiers denoting that individuals may exercise the right by themselves."
In a society with a negative charter of rights, it is government which would need the qualifier denoting under which circumstances they are allowed to disregard any particular rule, such as amendment 2, that they must otherwise follow. Not only is that proof that you have the onus backwards, its also proof that you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the underlying constitutional theory of our government.
Not that you need another torpedo to the side, but riddle me this Glenn:
Where in amendment 4 are the qualifiers denoting that individuals may exercise the right by themselves?
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
324 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The cumulative count will always increase unless people start rising from the dead.
hack89
Aug 2014
#6
An unsupported claim *and* a strawman in just one sentence. Well done!
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2014
#24
Let me know when it drops below the rate of death from e-bola in the US.
notrightatall
Oct 2014
#202
And this is why I feel good about resisting the people that want me to ban you, SM
krispos42
Aug 2014
#8
You're "helping the cause" in the same way Ian Paisley used to "help" Unionism...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2014
#17
So you think I'm being harassed for being the host of a group that bans gun nuts?
SecularMotion
Aug 2014
#26
Well the only place where opposing views to the ones presented in your echo chamber
shedevil69taz
Aug 2014
#31
A flat declaration of fact is now an "opinion", and a strawman is repeated
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2014
#39
Rates declining is not the same as the proportion of guns used to commit homicide.
acalix
Aug 2014
#50
Great Post! The 2a is racist, unnecessary, and evil. It should be repealed.
ncjustice80
Sep 2014
#58
Bogus! That mofo just keeps popping up. Such clearly debunked bullshit, and it still comes up.
NYC_SKP
Oct 2014
#81
The Dred Scott decision was passed, in part, to prevent slaves from owning guns.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2014
#67
Hit and run cowards with hands on their keyboards are giving aid and comfort to the GOP. NT
pablo_marmol
Sep 2014
#70
I think you're right but I wouldn't blame movies and books and TV shows on the NRA.
NYC_SKP
Sep 2014
#72
Even if we accept your erroneous interpretation that would still make the 2A addressed to the people
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2014
#124
It's kind looking, from the passge you have cited, that individual liberty is the issue at hand.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2014
#129
The passage -- which was selected by you and is not the totality of the debate -- deals with
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2014
#140
Your entire line of argument is moot, thanks to the unorganized militia...
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2014
#191
The ageist and sexist language wouldn't stand up to legal challenge
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2014
#208
Your claim conflicts directly with the wording of the Second Amendment itself
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2014
#216
The 'collective' reading of the Second Amendment is what's moot...
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2014
#238